Digital clock - any recommendations?


Recently heard an Esoteric setup with and without a digital external clock and the difference was not subtle.  I have a marantz sa11 s2.  Any recommendations?
tzh21y
Y@tzh21y I’m sure you know this but be sure you get a clock that offers 44.1kHz multiple outputs not just 10MHz. The Mutec Ref10 I use or the Abendrot Stute I linked to are 10MHz only and to be used as a Master reference for a playback frequency clock such as the dCS models.

Any of the Esoteric models will work fine or the dCS Rossini or Puccini u clock or the Mutec MC-3, of course any of these can then also have a 10 MHz reference added ... it can get pretty spendy 😉
@folkfreak

Name an audible benefit DSD provides over PCM; or explain an audible defect of PCM. To save time, “smearing” isn’t a valid response. PCM perfectly captures the waveforms below Nyquist and even undithered 16Bit has a larger dynamic range than our rooms allow. 16/44.1 is audibly perfect, assuming your DAC is good enough, it is easily verified by measurements/math as well as human trials; it’s all marketing.
  
Here’s a preamp with an internal word clock in/out
 

Direct experience makes no difference if it’s under sighted conditions. There is a company that sells anti-vibration stickers, and people believe they work.

And again, OP has never stated what he owns except the Marantz, so maybe an external word clock can’t even be used. Multi-box systems for residential use are extremely rare. I stated pre-amp for if one had a digital input that OP would use for plain CD, meaning if it was better than the DAC in the Marantz, which would be used for SACD. As again, What would this external clock going to be syncing, the Marantz and what?

And I still don’t buy that an external upsampler vs an internal one makes an audible difference, 44.1kHz filter performance by the Benchmark DAC3B, which internally upsamples to >200khz, no audible aliasing or imaging, or are you saying the Vivaldi performs worse than a $2K DAC?

Stereophile measurements show the Marantz is of transparent performance, so there is no need to add any tweaks for analog output.

Spending $4K on an external word clock for residential use is just throwing money down the drain.
Hey, if there’s no advantage to DSD how come DSD CDs sound so good? I have a bunch. Am I the unwitting victim of psychological mischief? 😳 Do my ears need a good candling? 🕯
@mzkmxcv,

Do you have any clue what you peddling here....the link you attached is not a preamp. It’s a LessLoss modified Rega CD player with external DAC. I am including the link again for your reading pleasure and education,

https://6moons.com/audioreviews/outside3/outside_2.html

I bet you’re still spinning CD’s in your boombox, that why you can’t comprehend the audible differences between DSD, PCM, Jitter. The component under discussion here with external clock and upsampler are well above your comprehension (sorry).

I do recall another member here thought Google Chrome SQ is more than adequate to stream music and anything beyond is waste of money....lol!!!

I’m done cause any further discussion (with you) would be a fool’s errand. 
@mzkmxcv. If you have read the manual for the SA11 S2 you’d know it has an external word clock input ...

As to the value of DSD I suggest you spend some time with sources like this, and really try to listen to a true high end digital rig one day without prejudice. In my system where I listen to all Red Book upsampled to DSDx2 I find that DSD gives a more continuous performance retaining more of the gestalt of performer in room. You’re welcome round my place if you’re ever in the PDX area and want to hear what I mean, changing the sample method and filters is easy and all the adjustments are clearly audible.

What may them blow your mind is to discover that the more esoteric, and costly, the setup the more it responds to detailed tweaks. Yes footers, power cords, damping stones and even anti vibration stickers all matter and are highly audible in a $200k digital setup ... kind of annoying, no 😉